TSA removes X-ray body scanners from major airports

Desire to speed up checkpoints, not safety, driving scanner switch.

The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks and replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer.

The TSA says it made the decision not because of safety concerns but to speed up checkpoints at busier airports. It means, though, that far fewer passengers will be exposed to radiation because the X-ray scanners are being moved to smaller airports.

The backscatters, as the X-ray scanners are known, were swapped out at Boston Logan International Airport in early October. Similar replacements have occurred at Los Angeles International Airport, Chicago O'Hare, Orlando and John F. Kennedy in New York, the TSA confirmed Thursday.

The X-ray scanners have faced a barrage of criticism since the TSA began rolling them out nationwide after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009. One reason is that they emit a small dose of ionizing radiation, which at higher levels has been linked to cancer.

In addition, privacy advocates decried that the machines produce images, albeit heavily blurred, of passengers' naked bodies. Each image must be reviewed by a TSA officer, slowing security lines.

The replacement machines, known as millimeter-wave scanners, rely on low-energy radio waves similar to those used in cell phones. The machines detect potential threats automatically and quickly using a computer program. They display a generic cartoon image of a person's body, mitigating privacy concerns.

"They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time."

He said the TSA decided to move the X-ray machines to less-busy airports after conducting an analysis of processing time and staffing requirements at the airports where the scanners are installed.

The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision, Castelveter said.

Asked about the changes, John Terrill, a spokesman for Rapiscan—which makes the X-ray scanners—wrote in an e-mail, "No comment on this."

The TSA is not phasing out X-ray body scanners altogether. The backscatter machines are still used for screening at a few of America's largest 25 airports, but the TSA has not confirmed which ones. Last week, Gateway Airport in Mesa, AZ, installed two of the machines.

The United States remains one of the only countries in the world to X-ray passengers for airport screening. The European Union prohibited the backscatters last year "in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety," according to a statement at the time. The last scanners were removed from Manchester Airport in the United Kingdom last month.

The X-ray scanner looks like two blue refrigerator-sized boxes. Unseen to the passenger, a thin beam scans left and right and up and down. The rays reflect back to the scanner, creating an image of the passenger's body and any objects hidden under his or her clothes.

The millimeter-wave scanner looks like a round glass booth. Two rotating antennas circle the passenger, emitting radio frequency waves. Instead of creating a picture of the passenger's body, a computer algorithm looks for anomalies and depicts them as yellow boxes on a cartoon image of the body.

According to many studies, including a new one conducted by the European Union, the radiation dose from the X-ray scanner is extremely small. It has been repeatedly measured to be less than the dose received from cosmic radiation during two minutes of the airplane flight.

Using those measurements, radiation experts have studied the cancer risk, with estimates ranging from six to 100 additional cancer cases among the 100 million people who fly every year. Many scientists say that is trivial, considering that those same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. And others, including the researchers who did the EU study, have said that so much is unknown about low levels of radiation that such estimates shouldn't be made.

Still, the potential risks have led some prominent scientists to argue that the TSA is unnecessarily endangering the public because it has an alternative—the millimeter-wave machine—which it also deems highly effective at finding explosives.

"Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially we're going to have some cancer cases?" David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, told ProPublica last year. "It makes me think, really, why don't we use millimeter waves when we don't have so much uncertainty?"

Although there has been some doubt about the long-term safety of the type of radio frequency waves used in the millimeter-wave machines, scientists say that, in contrast to X-rays, such waves have no known mechanism to damage DNA and cause cancer.

The TSA has said that having both technologies encourages competition, leading to better detection capabilities at a lower cost.

But tests in Europe and Australia suggest the millimeter-wave machines have some drawbacks. They were found to have a high false-alarm rate, ranging from 23 percent to 54 percent when figures have been released. Even common things such as folds in clothing and sweat have triggered the alarm.

In contrast, Manchester Airport officials told ProPublica that the false-alarm rate for the backscatter was less than 5 percent.

No study comparing the two machines' effectiveness has been released. The TSA says its own results are classified.

Each week, the agency reports on various knives, powdered drugs and even an explosives detonator used for training that have been found by the body scanners.

But Department of Homeland Security investigators reported last year that they had "identified vulnerabilities" with both types of machines. And House transportation committee chairman John Mica (R-FL), who has seen the results, has called the scanners "badly flawed."

Gathering people into a small contained area is not at all a target....Wait, yes it is. Then I'm glad I'm more in danger before the security checkpoint than ever before, Thanks TSA I'm sure your doing it for my safety.

I opted out of a backscatter scan once. I was still asked to go through the xray, and then led to the patdown put-feet-here mat while a TSA agent carried my bags over (after indicating which items on the conveyor were mine). They eventually reached the spot of "natural resistance" and the agent asked, "What's that?" "Me," was my response. He seemed embarrassed and uncomfortable and didn't question that -- which was good for me because I don't know what the "next level" of search entails.

But what has concerned me since is that someone with a dangerous payload hidden in their crotch could have done the exact same thing, or even tried to amp up the embarrassment, and simply walked through. All of this really is just security theater.

Can someone clarify this for me?From one of the linked articles:"Even though the radiation X-ray scanners emit is miniscule (equivalent to two to three minutes of flying at altitude), two peer-reviewed studies estimated that six or 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could develop cancer from the machines."

If its only 2-3 minutes of flying equivalent how are you going to get cancer when flying for 30+ minutes isn't?

You know, odds are pretty good that in aggregate more person years of life are lost due to the minor radiation these things put out than are saved protecting the public from the Wile E. Coyote schemes of idiot terrorists.

We've spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars on these devices only to have them relegated to minor airports after three years...just so we can spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars on new devices?

We've spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars on these devices only to have them relegated to minor airports after three years...just so we can spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars on new devices?

I feel safer already.

Now you're getting it!

... oh, wait, you're not one of those companies providing the scanners? Well, that was dumb of you, wasn't it?

The X-ray scanners have faced a barrage of criticism since the TSA began rolling them out nationwide after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009.

I sometimes feel like my reality is not quite real when reading a sentence like that. Perhaps I've been transported to some fiction crafted by Phillip K. Dick and Monty Python, a silly-walking dystopian future...

-- Scientists at the Florida Institute of Technology, University of California, Santa Cruz and the-- University of Florida have estimated that airplane passengers could be exposed to a radiation-- dose equal to that from 400 chest X-rays if their airplane happens to be near the start of a-- lightning discharge or related phenomena known as a terrestrial gamma ray flash.

The original article I read was (I think) in Scientific American. Don't know if their web page has it or not though.

Can someone clarify this for me?From one of the linked articles:"Even though the radiation X-ray scanners emit is miniscule (equivalent to two to three minutes of flying at altitude), two peer-reviewed studies estimated that six or 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could develop cancer from the machines."

If its only 2-3 minutes of flying equivalent how are you going to get cancer when flying for 30+ minutes isn't?

Radiation dosage is cumulative, so I think what they're saying is that the additional radiation from the backscatters could lead to an additional 6-100 cancer cases (of 100 million passengers). In our hypothetical situation, those 6 people aren't getting cancer from their 30 minute flights, but the 32 minutes of equivalent dosage leads to cancer.

They also state in the linked article that 40 million of the 100 million would get cancer over the course of their lifetimes without the machine, so 6 or even 100 is kind of a drop in the bucket. It's also impossible to say what factors contributed to the cancer.

In general, radiation should be avoided unless the possible benefits outweigh the known risks. For example, screening mammography is considered to have a net positive benefit for women over 50 - despite the known radiation concerns, catching cancer early is better.

In the case of backscatter X-ray, it doesn't really make any sense to add even the negligible radiation dose when an equally effective alternative like millimetre wave exists.

Can someone clarify this for me?From one of the linked articles:"Even though the radiation X-ray scanners emit is miniscule (equivalent to two to three minutes of flying at altitude), two peer-reviewed studies estimated that six or 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could develop cancer from the machines."

If its only 2-3 minutes of flying equivalent how are you going to get cancer when flying for 30+ minutes isn't?

Because that cosmic ray dosage is higher energy x-rays which penetrate and distribute the energy through your entire body. The backscatter deposits almost all of the radiation at the skin level. It's an equivalency based on mass, but the mass that absorbs the radiation isn't actually equal.

The X-ray scanners have faced a barrage of criticism since the TSA began rolling them out nationwide after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009.

I sometimes feel like my reality is not quite real when reading a sentence like that. Perhaps I've been transported to some fiction crafted by Phillip K. Dick and Monty Python, a silly-walking dystopian future...

The best part? Every plane in U.S. fleet at some point carries unscanned cargo in the baggage hold. Every. Single. One. The airlines use it as a means of making up empty seats, but there's so much cargo that it's simply not possible to scan every item. Instead a random sampling is subjected to scrutiny, while the 1+ million "registered shippers" in the TSA database are encouraged to self-report any suspicious activity.

Something everyone should think about the next time a $10/hr TSA screener is feeling them up.

You know what would be cheaper, faster, and at least as effective? Honoring my CHL and letting me carry on the plane after going past some sniffing dogs.

They'd need to tighten up how a CHL is issued. I can get one now from Virginia or Utah with almost no effort, with Texas giving reciprocal recognition. There's no need to meet with someone, nor do they really scrutinize the information provided. It would be trivial to create a false identity and get a license from either state, for cheap. Granted the CHL might not stand up to repeated scrutiny, and an audit would probably flag it, but audits only come along every few years and the CHL only has to pass a single checkpoint. Now you have a terrorist with a sidearm on a flight.

Furthermore, not to impugn your skills with a pistol, but I wouldn't trust most range-baby CHL holders to safely discharge their weapon in that tight of an environment.

Is the picture at the top of the article representative of the machines used in practice? (Haven't been through a US airport in years, so I'm not sure.) I ask because the tunnel between them seems fairly narrow - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone of a more adipose persuasion might get stuck in there....

Is the picture at the top of the article representative of the machines used in practice? (Haven't been through a US airport in years, so I'm not sure.) I ask because the tunnel between them seems fairly narrow - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone of a more adipose persuasion might get stuck in there....

Those are the L3 scanners which are replacing the Rapiscan ones that was mentioned in the article as being relocated to smaller airports. Those Rapiscan ones are slower because someone still looks at the X-ray and clears it where with the L3 the machine automatically says whether they are clear or not..

The TSA says it made the decision not because of safety concerns but to speed up checkpoints at busier airports.

Quote:

But tests in Europe and Australia suggest the millimeter-wave machines have some drawbacks. They were found to have a high false-alarm rate, ranging from 23 percent to 54 percent when figures have been released. Even common things such as folds in clothing and sweat have triggered the alarm.

Well this sounds like a government decision. Remove some equipment because it is too slow, and replace it with something that is likely to take even longer.

Is the picture at the top of the article representative of the machines used in practice? (Haven't been through a US airport in years, so I'm not sure.) I ask because the tunnel between them seems fairly narrow - it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone of a more adipose persuasion might get stuck in there....

Those are the L3 scanners which are replacing the Rapiscan ones that was mentioned in the article as being relocated to smaller airports. Those Rapiscan ones are slower because someone still looks at the X-ray and clears it where with the L3 the machine automatically says whether they are clear or not..

Those are the fast ones??! I've only done the L3 scanners, and it's slow as shit! I vastly prefer the metal detector, and use that if I can. Plus, you have to put your wallet, and anything else in your pocket on the belt, for any thief to pick up while you're standing their flapping your arms in the scanner. I don't care about the radiation crap, but these things are slowing down an already painfully slow, and mostly useless security check!